Player was not aware of raise amount. How should TD Rule?

[EbroTim]

Does TDA have a position on the following?

Player A raises pre-flop to 2,000.  Player B reraises to 7,000.  Both push their chips forward.  Dealer announced raise after each player's raise.  Player C announces call, and pushes 2,000 forward.  When the dealer informs Player C that the bet is 7,000, he says that he thought the bet was only 2,000.  Player D has not yet acted.

How should the TD rule?

A.  Give Player C his full range of options (call, raise, or fold) -- and if he decides to fold, he may retract the 2,000 he placed out.
B.  Allow Player C to either place out an additional 5,000 for the call, or fold and forfeit the 2,000.
C.  Commit Player C to calling the full 7,000.

Thank you for your participation in this discussion.

[chet]

EbroTim: 

I think the TD needs some additional information before he can make an informed ruling, specifically, "Why didn't Player C know that Player B had raised"?  Was he sleeping, not paying attention because the "tunes" in his headphones were so engrossing, texting his 'fans', etc., etc., etc.

If additional digging convinced me that Player C was not paying attention to the action, I would give him the option of folding leaving the 2,000 in the pot or calling the 7,000, I would not let him raise.

TDA Rule 41 on Accepted Action, regardless of the feelings of some, requires that players pay attention to the action and "...determine the amount of an opponents bet before calling...".  The 2nd part of this rule does not apply as he did not ask for a count and get incorrect information.

Based on the example you have provided, I don't see any extenuating circumstances to let him fold and retract the 2,000.

Chet

[K-Lo]

I think we have been recently discussing a similar situation at the end of this thread:  http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=798.msg7048#msg7048

I personally have not completely abandoned the "option to top-up or forfeit the amount already in the pot", and think that it is appropriate in certain situations;  however, I know that some 'prominent' TDs are of the view that the new Accepted Action rule requires the player to call and no option is given.  In their view, the "option to top-up" is pre-AA practice.

In this particular example, with no other facts to draw upon, and it would seem that no one else is at fault other than the player, and the difference in amounts is not too extreme (which I feel is an important factor but strict AA proponents would probably disagree), in a "serious" game, I would not have an issue with forcing a call here.  

[Nick C]

Embro Tim,

First of all I would offer one more option: Allowing a retraction or call only.

My ruling would be based on two factors; The reputation of the player, and correcting the mistake before substantial action has occurred. In your explanation, you mentioned that Player D had not yet acted. Therefore, I would consider Player C's action a complete misunderstanding of the amount of the raise.

I have always been against TDA #41 Accepted Action. However, because of the it's weak language, I would still be in compliance with the rule; using good old rule #1 to override the possibility of forcing any players involved in the hand, to either win, or lose more than they should.

Chet and Ken have both taken the more strict approach, which is also in compliance with Accepted Action. Is there anyone that can say any ruling is wrong?

[Tristan]

I would enforce the call.  Verbal is binding, and players need to pay attention.  I have seen a ruling in a 10k buy-in event where Player A was all-in (clearly announced), Player B (wearing headphones-thought he was calling big blind) stated call.  Player B was forced to make the call as he verbalized it.  Player A hadn't even had time to push out a stack before B had insta-called.

If Player C had just pushed out the 2k, I would have given him the option to fold and sacrifice the 2k or make the full call.

[Nick C]

Tristan,

I will not argue that there are many situations, as you described, where a player insta-calls. They would probably call any amount. My decision is based on an obvious unintentional call. I will never support any rule that forces a player to put chips in the pot, when a better option is to correct the misunderstanding as long as another player has not acted.

I have seen enough dramatics on youtube videos (from major events) where some players will take advantage. Pretending that their intent was to call a much lesser amount, only to win with the nut hand at the showdown.

[MikeB]

Per TDA Rule 34: Players must act in turn.  Verbal declarations in turn are binding. Chips placed in the pot in turn must stay in the pot.
Per TDA Rule 41: Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation.

Per OP's description, Player C "announces" call then pushes 2000 forward... this is non-standard action at the mercy of the TD. I would enforce the full call here 99.9% of the time. The only time I might consider leaving the 2k in and allowing him to fold is if the difference in $ was egregious and/or put him all-in. But again that's at my mercy, by rights he should call given the specifics of this exact case IMO.

NOW... if the guy had pushed the 2000 out silently, then after pushing the chips he mumbled call I might consider letting him leave it in and fold...

[Tristan]

Nick,

Oh, but I meant that in that scenario that Player B did make a mistake.  He thought he was calling the big blind, not an all-in.  He was knocked out of the tournament on that mistake.  (But in reality, he should not be wearing headphones if it leads to him making those type of mistakes.)

I understand what you are saying about misunderstandings,  I just have a hard time ruling against a verbal statement.

[Nick C]

If Player C just pushed, (and said nothing) he would be liable for 2000 only.
Nick I don't think there's a TDA rule that specifically says he's only liable for the 2000. There is a TDA rule that says the 2000 put in the pot in turn must stay in. Whether to force a call or allow the guy to fold and forfeit the 2000 here, IMO, is a TD decision. As I mentioned in previous post, I'm more inclined to consider it in this situation than if the guy declares "call" first.

Your rule, (and the majority) will not consider the intent of the Player...correct?

Under Rule 1 you can consider all facts that you deem relevant. Obviously different TDs may deem certain factors more important than others. Players accept the rule of the floorperson, per Rule 1, when they buy in. Also to remember: TDA Rule 36 which is one of the few rules that's underlined: "It's the players responsibility to make his intentions clear", not the TDs responsibility to read the guy's mind.

Specifically to the point of intent, certainly that's something a TD can consider. What in general I think we want to stay away from is writing intent into the rule, so for example a rule like this would cause problems: "Chips in turn must stay in the pot if the player intended to angle shoot"... we want to stay away from requiring an assessment of intention, and try and find rules that are black and white: if this happens then that, if something else happens, then something else.

The progress that was made at the 2011 Summit on "misunderstanding" bets was to require chips in turn to stay in the pot. That was nearly unanimously agreed to. It's probably a good idea to discuss whether further language can be adopted to specify what happens to the remainder of an undercall, and under what conditions; or if the membership decides that each situation has to be handled case-by-case using Rule 1. At least we know that the chips in turn must stay in the pot.

[Admin note: this post was mistakenly edited by MikeB in red, see following]
 

[MikeB]

Sorry Nick, I told someone to remind me not to post after midnight. I meant to hit the quote button and quote your post in a new post but apparently I hit the modify button and so ended up deleting a fair amount of your question, but hopefully retained most of the key points of it. My replies are above, in your post, in red.

I've already linked this thread to the topic of undercalls in proposed rule discussion... I'm going to also link it under a slightly different topic of "bet misunderstandings". Thanks again.

[Nick C]

Mike,
No problem. I'll try to recall what I wrote and see how your answers apply.

When I wrote:  "If Player C just pushed, (and said nothing) he would be liable for 2000 only." The rest of my quote that was omitted made reference to; announcing call first. You said: "Nick I don't think there's a TDA rule that specifically says he's only liable for the 2000. There is a TDA rule that says the 2000 put in the pot in turn must stay in. Whether to force a call or allow the guy to fold and forfeit the 2000 here, IMO, is a TD decision. As I mentioned in previous post, I'm more inclined to consider it in this situation than if the guy declares "call" first.
The point I was trying to make was: Because Player C "said" call first, he becomes liable for the full amount, TDA # 34 Verbal Declarations in turn are binding. The intent of the player was the same but, because he voiced his unintentional call, he is at the mercy of the floor. If Player C just pushed 2000 forward, thinking that was the bet, he would not have been liable for the full 7000, correct?

I have always taught players to make their intentions clear by announcing their bets and raises. The current rules send a message that silence might be a safer way to go.

My thoughts: Player C did not know there was a raise to 7000 in front of him, he pushed 2000 forward and said "I call."
   
The floor is called, what are the possible solutions? I will add the options EmbroTim listed with option D that I also thought would apply:
A.  Give Player C his full range of options (call, raise, or fold) -- and if he decides to fold, he may retract the 2,000 he placed out.
B.  Allow Player C to either place out an additional 5,000 for the call, or fold and forfeit the 2,000.
C.  Commit Player C to calling the full 7,000.
D.  Allow Player C to call 7000 only, with no option to raise.

My first question pertains to TDA # 32 Substantial Action. Does this rule apply to our situation, or not?
Second question: Can we ever; stop the action and correct a wager before substantial action occurs?

[WSOPMcGee]

I would enforce the full call here 99.9% of the time.

Agreed.

I'm going to go out on a limb and call it for myself at 99.999% of the time. I gotta leave 0.001% open for miscellaneous argumentative, nonsensical player statements that may by powerful enough to persuade me otherwise 

[spades]

I  would like to submit a similar situation that happen to me just few days ago in a main event of 770 euro buy-in  tournament in a italian casino

small blind 800 (table position 6) big blind 1600 (table position 7).
utg raise 3200 (position position 10 raise all-in for 13000
before position 1 acted,  small blind ask to the dealer how much is the UTG raise.
dealer announced 3200
at that point position 1 said call and trow 3200.
dealer call me to rules the situation.
and after the dealer explain to me all the action he also told me that he may  have been tricked by the announcement . I said to the  table that by the rules the player that made a statement is should be obliged to complete the bet to the all in bet cos is "accepted action" rule,  but i have to consider all the situation, the position of the players involve in the hand and what happend just before that player 1 said call
the misunderstanding could be easy make not cos was distracted but for the dealer announcement in this case.
by the way the position 1 didn t have music or was distract by any ipad or similar.
so I said to the table that my decision was made by  this rule

1:   Floor People
Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as top priorities in the decision-making process. Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules. The floorperson's decision is final.

other floor man told after that  in this way I  set a dangeruos precedent, and for them they let player 1 make a call to the all in cos it easyer and no gives any trouble in future.
but i am still convinced that was the best decision overall.
what you would do in my shoes..
thanks in advance.

[K-Lo]

Hi Spades.  I do think your situation is very similar.  It is unfortunate that the dealer answered the small blind's question when seat 1 hasn't acted yet - I would prefer that the dealer tell the SB to wait his turn.  In any case, I think the general trend is to force a call of 13000 under the accepted action rule... In the end, the player does have to pay attention.  And although I would prefer that some relief be given to the players if a dealer is asked for an exact count and gives the wrong information, the accepted action rule currently does not provide for such relief.

I understand that the player might have been thrown off by the dealer's statement, but I would like to know whether the all-in chips were pushed forward by seat 10, and whether the dealer announced all-in.  In my view, if the bet was in clear view, it is the player's fault for not counting it, and being "distracted".  On the other hand, if seat 10 whispered all-in to the dealer and did not push his chips forward, I may give him the option to top-up the call or fold because in fairness, there is no way to visually verify the bet -- but I know that strict accepted action proponents will not even allow this!  I am curious what you decided... Did you let him take the 3200 back, or allow him to fold but leave the chips in? 

In the past, my default would have been to give the option of topping up to 13000 or fold, but I do feel bound by accepted action not to give that option anymore.  I do look forward to getting some clarification on when rule 1 may be applied as an exception - in my view, one of the primary factors should be whether the full amount of the wager to be called is in clear view.  This is consistent with the general consensus that poker is a visual game.

On a related note, suppose at the summit, it is decided that accepted action is to be applied strictly, and that all undercalls must always be topped up for the full amount.  Does it make a difference whether a player announced "call" and then put in the wrong amount, or if he simply put in the wrong amount silently?  I don't think it should make a difference - we shouldn't be giving players an incentive to not verbalize their actions, and putting chips in then pot does signify an intention to continue in the hand.  This may need to be clarified as well.

[Stuart Murray]

I would enforce the full call here 99.9% of the time.

Agreed!

I said to the  table that by the rules the player that made a statement is should be obliged to complete the bet to the all in bet cos is "accepted action" rule,  but i have to consider all the situation, the position of the players involve in the hand and what happend just before that player 1 said call

so I said to the table that my decision was made by  this rule

I am a little confused what your decision was Spades!

other floor man told after that  in this way I  set a dangeruos precedent, and for them they let player 1 make a call to the all in cos it easyer and no gives any trouble in future

I presume means you allowed the player to fold, leaving the 3,200 in the middle.  We tend to be leaning towards enforcing a full call nowadays, but I would not have real issue with going either way providing you gave a reasonable justification for ruling that the player could do something other than call the all-in of 13,000

Regards
Stuart